In the end, she didn’t go because of the hateful pursuit of the Windrush generation that ruined many lives.

She didn’t go because she continued Theresa May’s hostile environment policy that, in an attempt to win back Ukip voters, so misread what British people wanted.

She didn’t go because she disgracefully rushed to blame her civil servants for a culture created at the top.

She didn’t even go because she had “inadvertently misled” the Home Affairs Select Committee, as she stated in her resignation letter.

She went because a newspaper – The Guardian in this case – held her to account and shone truth on the lies she had told.

Remember that next time you’re tempted to slate the mainstream media for fake news, or the new insult du jour: "group-think".

When the opposition frontbench are so demonstrably useless at picking apart the most hapless government in living memory, then journalism can be all that stands between you, dear reader, and abuse of power.

And so, today we find ourselves back to business as usual for Theresa May’s premiership – division and confusion.

This week, the inner cabinet sit around the table to decide Britain’s policies on Brexit.

What’s that you say? Almost two years since the referendum vote and they are still debating the basic principles of what it all means!?

If it is all so clear what the public voted for on 23 June 2016, then how come the cabinet still can’t decide what that was?

At first glance, the removal of Remainer Amber Rudd from that debate looks like bad news for Remainers.

But an Amber Rudd on the backbenches, released from any notion of collective responsibility and feeling raw from her recent role as Theresa May’s Windrush human shield, may actually do what MPs are meant to do: follow her convictions.

If she does, she could be a more effective check on the blind out-ism perpetrated by her former cabinet colleagues Johnson, Gove, Fox and Davis than she was toeing the line inside the tent.

Certainly, if she cast herself in the role of backbench antidote to Jacob Rees-Mogg, then the battle lines in the internecine Tory Brexit wars would be balanced. Game on.

Amber Rudd has reason to be bitter.

In her resignation letter, Rudd was conspicuously light on praise for Theresa May – the architect of this policy of hostility that caught up so many of our own citizens.

And while Rudd may be lousy on detail, one suspects that despite Theresa May’s multiple and manifest shortcomings, lack of attention to detail is not one of them.

Methodical, unsympathetic and obsessed by immigration – it would be remarkable if the prime minister’s fingerprints weren’t all over the principle of targeted deportations that lies at the core of this shameful episode.

And if the leaker of documents to the Guardian is a member of the Home Office civil service, as seems likely (after all, having been directly blamed by your boss for some of the most insidious, racist, institutional behaviour in Britain is going to hurt), then it would come as no surprise should more documents soon emerge painting Mrs May herself in an unflattering light.

Late last year, I predicted here in these GQ columns that May could be gone by May. I may not have been too far off.

She had, just like an English summer, been experiencing a short spell of fine weather.

Her handling of the Russian poisoning, and Britain’s response to the chemical attacks in Syria, had given an uncharacteristic impression of competency and leadership from Number Ten Downing Street.

It was a blip. Just like an English summer, rain and gales have returned with a vengeance.